Your analysis is both thoughtful and well-structured, offering a nuanced understanding of the legal complexities surrounding confession admissibility and informant testimony. I especially appreciate your balanced approach in presenting both prosecutorial and defense strategies, highlighting how evidentiary rules like the dying declaration and excited utterance exceptions can be leveraged, while also acknowledging the critical role of Miranda protections and voluntariness. Your reference to Rule 804(b)(2) and Rule 803(2) demonstrates a strong grasp of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and your inclusion of scholarly sources adds depth to your argument. The point about the informant's indirect knowledge being potentially admissible through corroboration is particularly compelling. This case truly exemplifies the tension between evidentiary strategy and constitutional safeguards, and your breakdown helps clarify how each side might navigate that tension. I look forward to seeing how you continue to apply these principles in future discussions.

thank your classmate for her feed back in your post and let her know that you are happy to see her in this class as you read from her in the pervious class and how you like her insightful feed back. use APA in-text citation from scholarly source and state how rule of evidence is indeed important in criminal procedures